### 59208 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 2014 / Notices

2 The report of the OIE scientific commission meeting in February 2013 can be viewed at http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/ Internationa

_Standard

_Setting/docs/pdf/SCAD/A

_ SCAD

_Feb2013.pdf . The discussion of the BSE case in Brazil appears on pages 13–14.

3 The report of the OIE scientific commission meeting in September 2013 can be viewed at http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/ Internationa

_Standard

_Setting/docs/pdf/SCAD/A

_ SCAD

_Sept2013.pdf . The discussion of the BSE case in Brazil appears on page 7. 2012, it was learned that a cow from Brazil that was sampled for testing in December 2010 tested positive for BSE. The commenter noted that immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests were not completed until June 2012, and it was another 6 months before a confirmatory test was completed at the Community Reference Laboratory in Weybridge, United Kingdom. The commenter stated that the lack of specific information regarding the OIE evaluation of the surveillance system made it difficult to determine if this was a one-time error or a failure of the system.

APHIS agrees that the delays in the testing and reporting of the atypical BSE case detected in Brazil were problematic. In response to these concerns, the OIE Scientific Commission requested that Brazil provide all relevant information for their meeting in February 2013. At that meeting, the OIE Scientific Commission affirmed that the identification of this single case of BSE did not put Brazil’s or its trading partners’ animal and public health at risk because the animal was destroyed and no parts of it had entered the food or feed chain. However, the OIE was also concerned about the delay before Brazil sent the clinical samples for a confirmatory diagnosis and requested more detailed information on the procedures for processing samples and the improvement of the surveillance system in the country, so that they could further monitor compliance by Brazil with international standards. 2 At a subsequent meeting in September 2013, the OIE assessed the additional information provided by Brazil. 3 The OIE was satisfied with the evidence submitted but also concluded that Brazil should submit the results of the proficiency tests conducted for 2013 to the OIE as soon as they became available.

In addition, representatives of APHIS and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service visited Brazil in February 2013 to evaluate the BSE laboratory infrastructure, emergency response, and BSE-related mitigations at the slaughter level. APHIS’ review of the epidemiological and laboratory reports, including the report from the confirmatory tests conducted at Weybridge, shows that Brazil’s first BSE case was most consistent with the atypical form of the disease. In addition, as a result of the delays in testing and reporting of this case, Brazil’s Ministe  ́ rio da Agricultura, Pecua  ́ ria e Abastecimento conducted audits of the laboratories to identify areas for change and improvement, and has implemented several new procedures to assure the timely testing of samples and reporting of results. Corrective actions include addition of a second lab to conduct IHC tests, expansion of testing capabilities to include Western Blot, and the development of an inter-laboratory data management system which will issue reports, record improper samples, and flag delays in sample receipt, completion, and notification of test results. Samples will be forwarded for IHC testing immediately after the immunofluorescence test for rabies is completed, rather than waiting for the animal inoculation tests to be completed.

We note that Brazil detected a suspected case of BSE in a 12-year-old cow in April 2014. The Brazilian authorities carried out the required epidemiological investigation in accordance with OIE guidelines. In May 2014, tests at the OIE reference laboratory in Weybridge confirmed that it was an atypical case of BSE.

Brazil still meets the criteria for a negligible risk region. In Article 11.5.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, the OIE requires, among other things, that if there has been an indigenous case of BSE in a region, every indigenous case was born more than 11 years ago. The cow in which BSE was detected was over 11 years of age. Therefore, this most recent case will not affect Brazil’s negligible risk status.

One commenter stated that India should be included in the list of regions of negligible risk for BSE.

Our review of information in support of concurrence with the OIE designation for India is ongoing; we have requested the OIE dossier but have not yet received it. When our review is complete, if the findings support concurrence with the OIE designation, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing our preliminary concurrence with the OIE’s designation for India and provide the public with an opportunity to comment.

One commenter stated that the United States should be included on this list of regions of negligible risk for BSE because some raw material may be exported from the United States and then reimported after processing abroad.

When APHIS assesses the disease status of a region, it is to determine whether imports can be safely allowed from that region. For this reason we do not typically include the United States in the lists of regions recognized for any given disease status. In the event that raw material was exported for processing, we could allow it to be reimported under conditions that would be specified on the import permit.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 92.5, we are announcing our decision to concur with the OIE risk classifications of the following countries:

• Regions of negligible risk for BSE: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, Slovenia.

• Regions of controlled risk for BSE: Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Nicaragua, Taiwan.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of September 2014. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–23407 Filed 9–30–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–34–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service** 

**[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0004]**

**Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No**  **Significant Impact for a Biological Control Agent for Soybean Aphid in**  **the Continental United States**

**AGENCY :**  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact relative to the release of Aphelinus rhamni for the biological control of the soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, in the continental United States. Based on its finding of no significant impact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Dr. Shirley A Wager-Page  ́ , Chief, Pest


### 59209 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 2014 / Notices

1 To view the notice, the comment we received, the EA, and the FONSI go to http://www. regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-

0004. 1 To view the notice, PRA, RMD, and comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0014. Permitting Branch, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–2323.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The soybean aphid, Aphis glycines, which is native to Asia, was found in North America in 2000 and has since become a major pest. It infested 42 million acres in North America in 2003, resulting in decreased soybean yields and greatly increased control costs. The soybean aphid has invaded most soybean production regions in North America. By 2009, soybean aphid was present in 30 States and 3 Canadian Provinces.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing to issue permits for the field release of a parasitic wasp, Aphelinus rhamni, to reduce the severity of soybean damage from infestations of soybean aphid in the United States.

On May 2, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 25094–25095, Docket No. APHIS–2014–0004) a notice 1 in which we announced the availability, for public review and comment, of an environmental assessment (EA) that examined the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed release of this biological control agent into the continental United States.

We solicited comments on the EA for 30 days ending June 2, 2014. We received one comment by that date. The commenter stated her opposition to the proposed release of A. rhamni, but did not provide any substantive information or specific concerns.

In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the release of A. rhamni into the continental United States for use as a biological control agent to reduce the severity of soybean aphid infestations. The finding, which is based on the EA, reflects our determination that release of this biological control agent will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

The EA and FONSI may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1). Copies of the EA and FONSI are also available for public inspection at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 799–7039 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**

.

The EA and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq. ); (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b); and (4) APHIS’ NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of September 2014. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–23415 Filed 9–30–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–34–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service** 

**[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0014]**

**Notice of Decision To Allow Interstate Movement of Allium spp. Leaves From**  **Hawaii Into the Continental United States** 

**AGENCY :**  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  We are advising the public of our decision to allow the interstate movement of Allium spp. leaves from Hawaii into the continental United States. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public to review and comment through a previous notice, we believe that the application of one or more phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the interstate movement of Allium spp. leaves from Hawaii to the continental United States.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: October 1, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. David Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 1231; (301) 851–2103.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Regulated Articles From Hawaii and the Territories’’ (7 CFR 318.13–1 through 318.13–26, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to the continental United States to prevent the spread of plant pests and noxious weeds that occur in Hawaii and the territories.

Section 318.13–4 contains a performance-based process for approving the interstate movement of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely moved subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the interstate movement of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin allowing the interstate movement of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if: (1) No comments were received on the pest risk analysis; (2) the comments on the pest risk analysis revealed that no changes to the pest risk analysis were necessary; or (3) changes to the pest risk analysis were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator’s determination of risk.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25095– 25096, Docket No. APHIS–2014–0014), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk analysis (PRA) that evaluates the risks associated with the interstate movement of Allium spp. from Hawaii into the continental United States. Based on the PRA, we prepared a risk management document (RMD) to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the commodity to mitigate the pest risk.

We solicited comments on the notice, PRA and RMD for 60 days ending on July 1, 2014. We received three comments by that date from a private citizen, a State department of agriculture, and an organization of State plant protection agencies.

Two commenters raised concerns that no production, harvest, or post-harvest procedures were specified in the RMD for the two lepidopteran pests (Acrolepiopsis sapponensis and